Our readers know that we ourselves recently noticed the tendency of too
many of our correspondents to depart from the courteous spirit by which
the earlier communications to this Journal were distinguished. The
intention we then announced of playing the tyrant in future, and
exercising with greater freedom our "editorial privilege of omission,"
we now repeat yet more emphatically. ICON well remarks that we are much
in the power of our contributors. Indeed we are more so than even he
supposes.
An article on the _Notes and Emendations_ which lately appeared in our
columns concluded, in its original form, with an argument against their
genuineness, based on the use of a word unknown to Shakspeare and his
cotemporaries. This appeared to us somewhat extraordinary, and a
reference to Richardson's excellent Dictionary proved that our
correspondent was altogether wrong _as to his facts_. We of course
omitted the passage; but we ought not to have received a statement
founded on a mistake which might have been avoided by a single
reference to so common a book.
Again, at p. 194. of the present volume, another correspondent, after
pointing out some coincidences between the old Emendator and some
suggested corrections by Z. Jackson, and stating that MR. COLLIER never
once refers to Jackson, proceeds: "MR. SINGER, however, talks
familiarly about Jackson, in his _Shakspeare Vindicated_, as if he had
him at his fingers' ends; and yet, at p. 239., he favours the world
with an _original_ emendation (viz. 'He did _behood_ his anger,'
_Timon_, Act III. Sc. 1.), which, however, will be found at page 389.
of Jackson's book." Now, after this, who would have supposed that, as
we learn from MR. SINGER, "MR. INGLEBY has founded his charge on such
slender grounds as one cursory notice of Jackson at p. 288. of my book,
where I mentioned him merely on the authority of MR. COLLIER." And who
that knows MR. SINGER will doubt the truth of his assertion, that he
has not even seen Jackson's book for near a quarter of a century, and
that he had not the slightest reason to doubt that the conjecture of
_behood_ for _behave_ was his own property?[2]
But there is another gentleman who, although he has never whispered a
remonstrance to us upon the subject, has even more grounds of complaint
than MR. SINGER, for the treatment which he has received in our
columns; we mean our valued friend and contributor MR. COLLIER, who we
feel has received some injustice in our pages. But the fact is that,
holding, as we do unchanged, the opinion which we originally expressed
of the great value of the _Notes and Emendations_--knowing MR.
COLLIER'S character to be above suspicion--and believing that the
result of all the discussions to which the _Notes and Emendations_ have
given rise, will eventually be to satisfy the world of their great
value,--_we_ have not looked so strictly as we ought to have done, and
as we shall do in future, to the tone in which they have been discussed
in "N. & Q."
And here let us take the opportunity of offering a few suggestions
which we think worthy of being borne in mind in all discussions on the
text of Shakspeare, whether the object under consideration be what
Shakspeare actually wrote, or what Shakspeare really meant by what he
did write.
First, as to this latter point. Some years ago a distinguished scholar,
when engaged in translating Goethe's _Faust_, came to a passage involved
in considerable obscurity, and which he found was interpreted very
differently by different admirers of the poem. Unable, under these
circumstances, to procure any satisfactory solution of the poet's
meaning, the translator applied to Goethe himself, and received from him
the candid reply which we think it far from improbable that Shakspeare
himself might give with reference to many passages in his own
writings,--"That {263} he was very sorry he could not assist him, but
he really did not know exactly what he meant when he wrote it." We
doubt not some of our contributors could supply us with many similar
avowals.
This opinion will no doubt offend many of those blind worshippers of
Shakspeare, who will not believe that he could have written a passage
which is not perfect, and who, consequently, will not be satisfied with
any note, emendation, or restoration which does not make the passage
into which it is introduced "one entire and perfect chrysolite." But
this is unreasonable. We have direct evidence of the imperfect
character of much that Shakspeare wrote. When told that Shakspeare had
never blotted a line, Ben Jonson--no mean critic, and no unfriendly
one--wished he had "blotted a thousand." Would rare Ben have uttered
such a wish ignorantly and without cause? We believe the existence of
such defects in the writings of Shakspeare, as they were left by him.
It follows, therefore, that in our opinion Shakspeare is under great
obligations to the undeservedly-abused commentators.[3] It would be
strange indeed, when we consider how many men of genius and learning
have busied themselves to illustrate his writings, if none of them
should have caught any inspiration from his genius. We believe they
have done so. We believe Theobald's "babbled o' green fields" to be one
of many instances in which, with reference to some one particular
passage, the scholiast has proved himself worthy of and excelling his
author. Yes, Shakspeare, the greatest of all uninspired writers, was
but mortal; and his worshippers would sometimes do well bear in mind
that their golden image had but feet of clay.
[Footnote 1: We had not seen this very able article until our attention was
called to it by this letter. We regret that the author of it was not aware
of what had been written in "N. & Q." on many of the points discussed by
him. Such knowledge might have modified some of his views.]
[Footnote 2: On this point we would call especial attention to MR.
HALLIWELL'S communication on the _Difficulty of avoiding Coincident
Suggestions on the Text of Shakspeare_, which will be found in our present
Number.]
[Footnote 3: One of the most specious arguments which have been advanced
against the genuineness of the _Notes and Emendations_ is, that they agree
in many instances with readings which had been suggested many years before
the discovery of the MS. Notes. Of course it is obvious that, wherever the
readings are right, they must do so; and these coincidences serve to
satisfy us of the correctness of both.]
* * * * *
Notes.